In reply to Post #75
Trying to get back on track here, so where is the defence case heading? The police officer(s) apparently have to assess so many things going on e.g. threat from the suspect which after he was handcuffed was non existent, adjudged threat from local crowd, well that could have been minimised if they had got off him instead their actions could have created riots there and then and not a few days later if more people had witnessed what was occurring. There was no immediate threat from the dozen or so people on the pavement, the MMA guy could have posed a threat to them but didn´t! Interesting to hear about the different levels of force allowed, but it was clear that a person should not remain in a prone decision after being restrained but should then be turned sideways into a recovery position, that is obvious to anybody with common sense, no need for any special training which apparently all police officers receive! An intriguing if not at times pretty boring court case and I will keep watching it and commenting (without bias) on here and hopefully the thread will be posted on in a repsonsible manner. The trial continues!!!!
Trying to get back on track here, so where is the defence case heading? The police officer(s) apparently have to assess so many things going on e.g. threat from the suspect which after he was handcuffed was non existent, adjudged threat from local crowd, well that could have been minimised if they had got off him instead their actions could have created riots there and then and not a few days later if more people had witnessed what was occurring. There was no immediate threat from the dozen or so people on the pavement, the MMA guy could have posed a threat to them but didn´t! Interesting to hear about the different levels of force allowed, but it was clear that a person should not remain in a prone decision after being restrained but should then be turned sideways into a recovery position, that is obvious to anybody with common sense, no need for any special training which apparently all police officers receive! An intriguing if not at times pretty boring court case and I will keep watching it and commenting (without bias) on here and hopefully the thread will be posted on in a repsonsible manner. The trial continues!!!!
In reply to Post #76
Easy to say after the event when you can analyse, maybe not so easy when you're in the thick of it.
That's not making excuses by the way, not at all, just saying.
Easy to say after the event when you can analyse, maybe not so easy when you're in the thick of it.
That's not making excuses by the way, not at all, just saying.
In reply to Post #77
Surely the training that police receive is specifically designed to allow officers to have that awareness.
Surely the training that police receive is specifically designed to allow officers to have that awareness.
In reply to Post #78
Agreed, you would think so and you'd hope so but not in this case.
Gross negligence certainly plays a big part in this, whether it was wilful murder is up to the trial.
Agreed, you would think so and you'd hope so but not in this case.
Gross negligence certainly plays a big part in this, whether it was wilful murder is up to the trial.
In reply to Post #76
Good on you for getting the thread back on track
I'm in agreement that whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing, foresight is part and parcel of what we surely must expect from emergency services personnel and is a key part of their training.
The paramedic statement was interesting. He sounded like his training helped him to assess the situation very accurately. Having to ask Chauvin to get off a limp body so he could attend to the man as a start point....
Good on you for getting the thread back on track
I'm in agreement that whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing, foresight is part and parcel of what we surely must expect from emergency services personnel and is a key part of their training.
The paramedic statement was interesting. He sounded like his training helped him to assess the situation very accurately. Having to ask Chauvin to get off a limp body so he could attend to the man as a start point....
In reply to Post #68
Not just a reply to #66
The point I was making, is that this whole incident blew up, because BLM etc jumped on the back of it, as a white police officer killed a black man. The media, celebrities etc, ran with it as a racial incident. The world lost its mind. It was pushed as being a racial incident from the start. Yet nothing in the video, shows it was racist. It came because one was white, and one was black, and the perception of what people want to see. If you watched it with no idea what race skin colour etc was, I don't think anyone would be saying anything other than the officer overstepped the mark and messed up.
The bodyworn before the 8 minutes of kneeling, did not show anything to suggest he was being treated in any other way, than they would have treated anyone else in that situation. That footage was not released intentionally, and maybe not for everyone, but could have helped calm the overall situation down.
And wether or not someone appears guilty, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The storm caused by BLM etc and making this into an incident of race, prevents this being a fair trial. Emotions will be running high, and will jury members be scared to hold an opinion that differs to what others think. Normal people will accept the finding, wether they agree or not. But the vocal minority will be the ones that go out looting rioting etc, and, although a minority, it's made to seem like a majority, and that will be in the jury's mind also.
All murder trials are the same with only one person being there to give their side of the story. If you kill someone in a car crash, same thing. But I'm sure if it was your friend or family member, or yourself on trial, you'd want it to be a fair a trial as possible.
And I've already said I know it's impossible for the jury not to have seen media etc, and I know they are doing the best they can, but it won't be a fair trial.
But I am entitled to hold an opinion that differs, and share it, without being shouted down
Not just a reply to #66
The point I was making, is that this whole incident blew up, because BLM etc jumped on the back of it, as a white police officer killed a black man. The media, celebrities etc, ran with it as a racial incident. The world lost its mind. It was pushed as being a racial incident from the start. Yet nothing in the video, shows it was racist. It came because one was white, and one was black, and the perception of what people want to see. If you watched it with no idea what race skin colour etc was, I don't think anyone would be saying anything other than the officer overstepped the mark and messed up.
The bodyworn before the 8 minutes of kneeling, did not show anything to suggest he was being treated in any other way, than they would have treated anyone else in that situation. That footage was not released intentionally, and maybe not for everyone, but could have helped calm the overall situation down.
And wether or not someone appears guilty, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. The storm caused by BLM etc and making this into an incident of race, prevents this being a fair trial. Emotions will be running high, and will jury members be scared to hold an opinion that differs to what others think. Normal people will accept the finding, wether they agree or not. But the vocal minority will be the ones that go out looting rioting etc, and, although a minority, it's made to seem like a majority, and that will be in the jury's mind also.
All murder trials are the same with only one person being there to give their side of the story. If you kill someone in a car crash, same thing. But I'm sure if it was your friend or family member, or yourself on trial, you'd want it to be a fair a trial as possible.
And I've already said I know it's impossible for the jury not to have seen media etc, and I know they are doing the best they can, but it won't be a fair trial.
But I am entitled to hold an opinion that differs, and share it, without being shouted down
In reply to Post #81
Entitled is a strange way of putting it. Are people entitled to disagree?
Entitled is a strange way of putting it. Are people entitled to disagree?
In reply to Post #82
You are entitled to your opinion, wether its different to mine or not, i wont judge you. Cant speak for others though.
Have i at some point suggested you cant have an opinion?
You are entitled to your opinion, wether its different to mine or not, i wont judge you. Cant speak for others though.
Have i at some point suggested you cant have an opinion?
In reply to Post #83
So long as you deem it not "shouting down" your's whatever that bar is set by you.
So long as you deem it not "shouting down" your's whatever that bar is set by you.
In reply to Post #84
Apologies if ive in someway offended you. Thought you might have had a thicker skin the way youve been going on at other people.
Apologies if ive in someway offended you. Thought you might have had a thicker skin the way youve been going on at other people.
In reply to Post #85
No offence taken
I'm amazed you have a pretty agricultural argument that this officer won't get a fair trial, because people have made their mind up, without offering an alternative. (Seems like getting the whinging in early too me.) You're doing exactly the same by making your mind up about the trial... It's demeaning to the jury who may have a more open mind than you mate.
No offence taken
I'm amazed you have a pretty agricultural argument that this officer won't get a fair trial, because people have made their mind up, without offering an alternative. (Seems like getting the whinging in early too me.) You're doing exactly the same by making your mind up about the trial... It's demeaning to the jury who may have a more open mind than you mate.
In reply to Post #81
Spot on Heff.......end of the day he ****ed about when being put in the car and was resisting! Now I'm sure people who live in America know how trigger happy police are so why would you risk it immaterial of your skin colour!!!
From everything I have seen and heard, racism is simply not evident one bit!
Chauvin will be round guilty for man slaughter or not guilty.......either way it won't be good enough for lefties and the BLM cult.......
Spot on Heff.......end of the day he ****ed about when being put in the car and was resisting! Now I'm sure people who live in America know how trigger happy police are so why would you risk it immaterial of your skin colour!!!
From everything I have seen and heard, racism is simply not evident one bit!
Chauvin will be round guilty for man slaughter or not guilty.......either way it won't be good enough for lefties and the BLM cult.......
Happened in America not our problem all this is going to do is keep the race baiters happy !! It'll kick off in the states & migrate over here just like it did last summer leading to a bunch of middle class white kids acting like a bunch of halfwits & the old Bill showing themselves up again 🤷♂️
In reply to Post #88
Not sure at the moment what is going on (still trying to catch up on this mornings coverage), but seems like the defence will be trying to get a mistrial, probably their best and only hope.
Not sure at the moment what is going on (still trying to catch up on this mornings coverage), but seems like the defence will be trying to get a mistrial, probably their best and only hope.
In reply to Post #89
Latest statement I've read is from the Minneapolis Police Chief who has said that Chauvin violated policy and was not acting in line with training.
I guess if anyone should know, then he should.
Latest statement I've read is from the Minneapolis Police Chief who has said that Chauvin violated policy and was not acting in line with training.
I guess if anyone should know, then he should.